shortonoil wrote:Again your lack of knowledge in the field of physics is resounding! The energy is not wasted, it is the result of waste heat production that must take place for the process to go forward. The Second Law demands it. The efficiency of the system is determined by the temperature of the source and the sink. The sink is the environment which is defined as °77 F. It is the average temperature of the earth's surface. The source, in this case, is the average combustion temperature of a hydrocarbon. The maximum efficiency that hydrocarbons will ever operate at can not exceed about 20%. If you want something more than that you either have to come up with an alternative to hydrocarbons, or move to a different universe.

The present production of energy from the IC now being used has been refined for over a 100 years. Any additional efficiency gains that may be realized would not be worth the investment. They would be tiny. The only alternative is to shrink the overall use of energy, and that means shrinking the economy. That is now what is happening.

If you decide to move to a different universe, were the Laws of Physics are more to your liking - write if you get work!

I'm not talking about rewriting the laws of physics. I'm talking about capturing waste heat and putting it to productive use. Our electricity production largely comes from fossil fuels & nuclear. However only around 1/3rd of the energy ends up as productive work. The rest is discarded as waste heat. At the same time, we also spend a large amount of our energy production for the purpose of generating heat. Instead of discarding the waste heat from electricity production, it should be harnessed for productive purposes. Like in a CHP plant. This would dramatically reduce the amount of heat that is discarded as waste.

Combined heat & power (CHP) or cogeneration, is really not an energy source itself, but rather more of an energy multiplier, squeezing more usable energy out of each unit of fuel most everywhere it is applied. Heat is an inevitable byproduct of any power produced by gas or steam turbines, which would include all gas, coal, oil or nuclear power plants in use today. Using the heat to keep a building comfortable or drive a production process, with steam or hot water, will also do the job with little loss in efficiency.

A conventional fossil fuel plant achieves a thermal efficiency of approximately 33 percent. When integrated into a CHP system, the same power plant can achieve efficiencies between 60 and 80 percent. It is estimated that CHP systems can reduce carbon emissions by up to 30 percent. Without CHP, fuel is used to provide electricity and then additional fuel is used for heat, which in many cases is a missed opportunity.

Gas accounts for 48% of the UK’s electricity supply and, of the 372 Terra-Watt hours of electricity it produces per year, 54% of this is lost as heat. Coal, meanwhile, accounts for 28% producing 297 TWh, loses an even higher proportion – 66%. Nuclear – accounting for 16% of the energy supply with 162 TWh, loses 65% and oil – 3% of the supply with 51 TWh – loses 77%.

Contrast these figures with renewable energy – which all together account for 4% of the UK’s electricity supply producing 14 TWh – they lose less than one percent. So, under this measure, renewable energy is 100% efficient.

There are similar opportunities to dramatically reduce wasted energy in transportation. Rail is 3x as efficient as trucking. Barges are 9x as efficient as trucking. If we switched over to barge/rail for the majority of our long haul shipping needs this will dramatically reduce energy waste. Hybrids can capture wasted energy from braking and put it to productive use. And EVs waste even less energy than hybrids.

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imaging technology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imagingtechnology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

This is an interesting point. A lot of people here just naturally assume that there is more energy utilized in unconventionals but forget the impact of dry holes. Most companies in conventional oil and gas exploration will drill wells if they believe there is at least a 30% chance of geologic success. Over all the years I was involved in the industry I don’t think I ever came across a conventional exploration play that had better than 50% chance of geologic success on the intial well. To the contrary unconventional plays have very high chance of geologic success (>90%) with only the chance of economic success to worry about. Because companies drill enough wells it is the overall production they are interested in, hence single unconventional wells that might have lower EUR than is thought to be economic at that point in time are still produced because there are other wells with much higher EUR. As a consequence wells in the unconventional plays are seldom listed as D&A (drilled and abandoned) and as you point out that results in a lot less waste (both capital and energy).

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imagingtechnology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

This is an interesting point. A lot of people here just naturally assume that there is more energy utilized in unconventionals but forget the impact of dry holes. Most companies in conventional oil and gas exploration will drill wells if they believe there is at least a 30% chance of geologic success. Over all the years I was involved in the industry I don’t think I ever came across a conventional exploration play that had better than 50% chance of geologic success on the intial well. To the contrary unconventional plays have very high chance of geologic success (>90%) with only the chance of economic success to worry about. Because companies drill enough wells it is the overall production they are interested in, hence single unconventional wells that might have lower EUR than is thought to be economic at that point in time are still produced because there are other wells with much higher EUR. As a consequence wells in the unconventional plays are seldom listed as D&A (drilled and abandoned) and as you point out that results in a lot less waste (both capital and energy).

Doesn't exactly sound like doom, does it?

Speaking of technological improvement, as the off grid power and the green grid power source build-out occurs in the next few decades or so -- the idea of some "crash" due to "the end of fossil fuels" becomes even more ludicrous.

So first, the idea that one day, suddenly, without warning, there will be no more oil, coal, and natural gas (in the next 50 years or so, anyway) is absurd (barring some major other event like a giant meteor hitting the earth, WW III, etc that is game over anyway). So that scenario was never realistic -- only that supplies might diminish and prices rise, as seemed to be occurring in the 70's, for example. Not doom, but harder economic times.

But within two or three decades, increasingly, even if fossil fuels suddenly get rare, we're unlikely to care much as the cleaner, safer, more reliable (with sufficient storage tech) green supplies become abundant, and that includes the EV fleet build-out.

And I know doomers -- you HATE to hear anything like that which gets in the way of the hard crash soon scenario -- but it's there. And it will grow. Not that a big grid outage wouldn't be an economic shock and a big pain in the butt -- but it wouldn't be doom if a lot of critical infrastructure still had power.

Ms. Haugian is in contact with some of Europe's most powerful families. In conjunction with her own work she is using the Etp Model as confirmation to prepare for a major world wide reset. She, and her colleagues are informing the European political elite of the danger.

kublikhan wrote:Economic grow encompasses more than just increasing our resource usage or debt. Increasing our population and/or our rate of resource consumption is called extensive growth. However their is another type of growth called intensive growth. This grows our economy through more efficient uses of inputs. Your assumption that economic growth will cease if oil growth ceases neglects to consider economic gains from intensive growth.

An increase in economic growth caused by more efficient use of inputs (such as labor productivity, physical capital, energy or materials) is referred to as intensive growth. GDP growth caused only by increases in the amount of inputs available for use (increased population, new territory) is called extensive growth.

ProductivityIncreases in labor productivity (the ratio of the value of output to labor input) have historically been the most important source of real per capita economic growth. Increases in productivity are the major factor responsible for per capita economic growth – this has been especially evident since the mid-19th century. The balance of the growth in output has come from using more inputs. Both of these changes increase output.

Other factors affecting growthPolitical institutions, property rights, and rule of lawIn economics and economic history, the transition to capitalism from earlier economic systems was enabled by the adoption of government policies that facilitated commerce and gave individuals more personal and economic freedom. These included new laws favorable to the establishment of business, including contract law and laws providing for the protection of private property, and the abolishment of anti-usury laws. When property rights are less certain, transaction costs can increase, hindering economic development. Enforcement of contractual rights is necessary for economic development because it determines the rate and direction of investments. When the rule of law is absent or weak, the enforcement of property rights depends on threats of violence, which causes bias against new firms because they can not demonstrate reliability to their customers.

In many poor and developing countries much land and housing is held outside the formal or legal property ownership registration system. In many urban areas the poor "invade" private or government land to build their houses, so they do not hold title to these properties. Much unregistered property is held in informal form through various property associations and other arrangements. Reasons for extra-legal ownership include excessive bureaucratic red tape in buying property and building. In some countries it can take over 200 steps and up to 14 years to build on government land. Other causes of extra-legal property are failures to notarize transaction documents or having documents notarized but failing to have them recorded with the official agency. Not having clear legal title to property limits its potential to be used as collateral to secure loans, depriving many poor countries one of their most important potential sources of capital. Unregistered businesses and lack of accepted accounting methods are other factors that limit potential capital.

Extensive growth, in economics, is based on the expansion of the quantity of inputs in order to increase the quantity of outputs, opposite to that of intensive growth. For example, GDP growth caused only by increases in population or territory would be extensive growth. Thus, extensive growth is likely to be subject to diminishing returns. It is therefore often viewed as having no effect on per-capita magnitudes in the long-run.

Reliance on extensive growth can be undesirable in the long-run because it exhausts resources. To maintain economic growth in the long-run, especially on a per-capita basis, it is good for an economy to grow intensively; for example, by improvements in technology or organisation, thereby increasing the production possibilities frontier of the economy.

kublikhan wrote:That's kind of my point pstarr. We as a society are incredibly wasteful with our energy consumption. Most of the energy we consume is wasted. We are increasing our our efficiency and our economy is growing even with lower energy use. However we have barely begun to scratch the surface with what we can accomplish on this front.

Listening to global leaders at CERAWeek in Houston, innovation in the fossil fuel industry was a frequent theme.

Despite the drop in investment, innovation doesn’t stop during low price periods. When prices are high, investment focuses on bringing new supply online. When prices are low, companies focus their efforts on efficiency—bringing oil and gas to market at lower cost. Some of these efforts focus on improving current processes, such as drilling longer laterals and fracking more efficiently in shale and tight oil and gas wells. Several industry speakers, including the CEOs of BP and ConocoPhillips, said that improvements in existing techniques will continue and that there are more efficiencies to be found.

Other efficiency efforts are focused on new technology—particularly, finding ways to better utilize data. One speaker pointed out that the oil and gas industry is somewhat behind the times in its technology and data use. Many of us use the app Waze, which tracks traffic via cell phone signals on the road to find the most efficient route to our destination. He noted that the oil and gas industry doesn’t have any data systems that are this high-tech. Data collection in the industry is running ahead of data utilization, and significant efficiencies could be found through better data analysis.

Americans used less energy overall in 2015 than the previous year. Overall, Americans used 0.8 quadrillion BTU, or quads, less in 2015 than in 2014 (a BTU or British Thermal Unit, is a unit of measurement for energy; 3,600 BTU is equivalent to about 1 kilowatt-hour).

Much of the overall decrease in energy consumption can be traced to the shift from coal to gas, because modern gas-fired plants may use up to 46 percent less energy to produce the same amount of electricity." Renewable energy continues to grow, with use of wind energy up 5 percent, geothermal energy up 11 percent and residential solar energy up 11 percent.

Not all the energy consumed is put to use and accounts for the rejected energy. The country wasted 1 percent less energy in 2015, going from 59.4 quadrillion BTU in 2014 down to 59.1 quads in 2015. This decrease is tied to the increase in efficiency of the electricity production sector, such as large solar farms in the desert. The majority of energy use in 2015 was used for electricity generation (38 quads, down slightly from 2014), followed by transportation, industrial, residential and commercial. The residential, commercial and industrial sectors used less energy in 2015.

That's because a global capitalist economy that is driven by competition and visions of a bright future characterized by house-flipping, leisurely driving in electric cars, and innovation ends up not only wasting a lot but also consuming and polluting more. Hence,

kublikhan wrote:I was referring to the US economy. The statement is also true of the developed economies. You are of course correct that the world economy continues to consume more energy year after year.

Also, most of the world economy and population are characterized as "developing". For-profit businesses in competition with each other obviously want to expand markets, and that means ensuring that more people worldwide borrow, spend, invest, and consume more. That ultimately means using more resources and energy on an incredible scale, and far higher than what the biosphere allows.

kublikhan wrote:I'm not talking about rewriting the laws of physics. I'm talking about capturing waste heat and putting it to productive use. Our electricity production largely comes from fossil fuels & nuclear. However only around 1/3rd of the energy ends up as productive work. The rest is discarded as waste heat. At the same time, we also spend a large amount of our energy production for the purpose of generating heat. Instead of discarding the waste heat from electricity production, it should be harnessed for productive purposes. Like in a CHP plant. This would dramatically reduce the amount of heat that is discarded as waste.

Combined heat & power (CHP) or cogeneration, is really not an energy source itself, but rather more of an energy multiplier, squeezing more usable energy out of each unit of fuel most everywhere it is applied. Heat is an inevitable byproduct of any power produced by gas or steam turbines, which would include all gas, coal, oil or nuclear power plants in use today. Using the heat to keep a building comfortable or drive a production process, with steam or hot water, will also do the job with little loss in efficiency.

A conventional fossil fuel plant achieves a thermal efficiency of approximately 33 percent. When integrated into a CHP system, the same power plant can achieve efficiencies between 60 and 80 percent. It is estimated that CHP systems can reduce carbon emissions by up to 30 percent. Without CHP, fuel is used to provide electricity and then additional fuel is used for heat, which in many cases is a missed opportunity.

Gas accounts for 48% of the UK’s electricity supply and, of the 372 Terra-Watt hours of electricity it produces per year, 54% of this is lost as heat. Coal, meanwhile, accounts for 28% producing 297 TWh, loses an even higher proportion – 66%. Nuclear – accounting for 16% of the energy supply with 162 TWh, loses 65% and oil – 3% of the supply with 51 TWh – loses 77%.

Contrast these figures with renewable energy – which all together account for 4% of the UK’s electricity supply producing 14 TWh – they lose less than one percent. So, under this measure, renewable energy is 100% efficient.

There are similar opportunities to dramatically reduce wasted energy in transportation. Rail is 3x as efficient as trucking. Barges are 9x as efficient as trucking. If we switched over to barge/rail for the majority of our long haul shipping needs this will dramatically reduce energy waste. Hybrids can capture wasted energy from braking and put it to productive use. And EVs waste even less energy than hybrids.

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imaging technology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

Renewable energy involves components that require oil for mining, manufacturing, and shipping. So do many other manufactured goods. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Also, the goal of being efficient in capitalist systems with competition is not conservation but increased consumption. In fact, that's the main reason for investing in productivity, with expectations of high returns on investment, which in turn is either used for more consumption or even more production.

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imagingtechnology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

This is an interesting point. A lot of people here just naturally assume that there is more energy utilized in unconventionals but forget the impact of dry holes. Most companies in conventional oil and gas exploration will drill wells if they believe there is at least a 30% chance of geologic success. Over all the years I was involved in the industry I don’t think I ever came across a conventional exploration play that had better than 50% chance of geologic success on the intial well. To the contrary unconventional plays have very high chance of geologic success (>90%) with only the chance of economic success to worry about. Because companies drill enough wells it is the overall production they are interested in, hence single unconventional wells that might have lower EUR than is thought to be economic at that point in time are still produced because there are other wells with much higher EUR. As a consequence wells in the unconventional plays are seldom listed as D&A (drilled and abandoned) and as you point out that results in a lot less waste (both capital and energy).

Doesn't exactly sound like doom, does it?

Speaking of technological improvement, as the off grid power and the green grid power source build-out occurs in the next few decades or so -- the idea of some "crash" due to "the end of fossil fuels" becomes even more ludicrous.

So first, the idea that one day, suddenly, without warning, there will be no more oil, coal, and natural gas (in the next 50 years or so, anyway) is absurd (barring some major other event like a giant meteor hitting the earth, WW III, etc that is game over anyway). So that scenario was never realistic -- only that supplies might diminish and prices rise, as seemed to be occurring in the 70's, for example. Not doom, but harder economic times.

But within two or three decades, increasingly, even if fossil fuels suddenly get rare, we're unlikely to care much as the cleaner, safer, more reliable (with sufficient storage tech) green supplies become abundant, and that includes the EV fleet build-out.

And I know doomers -- you HATE to hear anything like that which gets in the way of the hard crash soon scenario -- but it's there. And it will grow. Not that a big grid outage wouldn't be an economic shock and a big pain in the butt -- but it wouldn't be doom if a lot of critical infrastructure still had power.

Smart phones are a case of 'on the one hand...but then on the other hand'. Yes, it is true that young people are leaving home in cars less frequently, having less sex, fewer teenage pregnancies, etc. But on the other hand they are not forming the bonds which lead to families, and they are suffering from depression. Depression brings on all sorts of health problems. The research shows that looking at screens brings on depression. (Reading some of the comments on Peak Oil brings on suicidal tendencies???)

I believe that the article illustrates how hard it is to actually get clean wins. People of all ages need to get out and socialize. In most places in the United States, that requires driving. We are suffering the consequences of what Jim Kunstler calls the greatest misallocation of capital in American history...the suburbs.

Kub, waste heat from the Consolidated Edison coal-fired power plant has been supplied to heat buildings in Manhattan for over a century.

The New York City steam system is a district heating system which takes steam produced by steam generating stations and carries it under the streets of Manhattan to heat and cool high rise buildings and businesses. Some New York businesses and facilities also use the steam for cleaning and disinfection.

The New York Steam Company began providing service in lower Manhattan on March 3, 1882.[2] Today, Consolidated Edison operates the largest commercial steam system in the world.[3] The organization within Con Edison that is responsible for the system's operation is known as Steam Operations, providing steam service to over 1,700 customers and serving commercial and residential establishments in Manhattan from Battery Park to 96th Street uptown on the West side and 89th Street on the East side of Manhattan.[4] Roughly 24 billion pounds (11,000,000 t) of steam flow through the system every year.[1]

It's not a new idea, but an expensive investment in infrastructure. It seems we in the US no longer have the political will, or money for such improvements. District in heating New York City (and all over the world) mostly predates suburban sprawl when folks lived in apartment building and businesses were nearby. If there are newer major installations I have not heard of them.

There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.” ― Maya Angelou

Ms. Haugian is in contact with some of Europe's most powerful families. In conjunction with her own work she is using the Etp Model as confirmation to prepare for a major world wide reset. She, and her colleagues are informing the European political elite of the danger.

I want to see a $41 handle on the price of WTI this year, then I will be afraid, very afraid

They require far less oil than burning it to drive 1.2 billion passenger vehicles, and counting, plus commercial vehicles, etc. Planes? I don't know. We may still need FF's for planes. Of course, we could fly less if we really wanted a lower CO2 output.

They will likely require less oil per unit, as efficiency increases. Also, there are substitutes via other hydrocarbons like NG, if push comes to shove.

In 50ish years, I'd FAR rather be facing possible shortages in thousands of years by having to build "too many" solar panels than maybe in under 100 by continuing to burn oil every day in massive quantities for the transport network.

Also, considering much of the planet can likely be fracked for oil and gas if the need arises, despite doomer claims, the current glut says we're nowhere remotely close to getting short on the stuff (or coal, or NG) for a LONG time, once we're burning maybe 10% or so of what we burn now, thanks to green energy alternatives.

Or are we going to continue to pretend that none of this can possibly be true, even in the face of all the indications the trends are pointing more and more in that direction?

ralfy wrote:Read the last paragraph of your post, then connect it to my argument.

Already read it ralfy. The last paragraph is talking about extensive growth. And in the advanced countries there is little to none extensive growth. Populations have leveled off or are shrinking. And energy consumption has leveled off or is shrinking as well. Instead, the advanced economies seem to be growing through intensive growth.

ralfy wrote:That's because a global capitalist economy that is driven by competition and visions of a bright future characterized by house-flipping, leisurely driving in electric cars, and innovation ends up not only wasting a lot but also consuming and polluting more. Hence,

I was actually about talking energy wasted as heat. Not energy consumed for productive but questionable purposes.

ralfy wrote:Renewable energy involves components that require oil for mining, manufacturing, and shipping. So do many other manufactured goods. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.

Those "green supplies" require oil.

By using the fossil fuels for the construction of renewable energy instead of consuming it as a feedstock, you multiple the total amount of energy those fossil fuels supply buy a factor of 18!

If we have to use fossil fuels to manufacture renewable plants, doesn't it mean that renewables are useless? Raugei's answer is a resounding "no". In fact, the EROEI of fossil fuels acts as a multiplier for the final EROEI of the whole process.

Broadly speaking, we therefore have two options:1) keep using all the oil (and other fossil fuels) directly as FEEDSTOCK fuel in conventional power plants. In so doing, we would get out roughly 1/3 of the INPUT energy as electricity (electricity production efficiency in conventional power plants being ~0.33). This would be the "quick and dirty" option, that maximizes the short-term (almost instantaneous, in fact) "bang for the buck".

2) Use the same amount of available oil (and other fossil fuels) as (direct and indirect) INPUT for the production of PV plants.

Building and deploying a modern crystalline silicon PV system requires approximately 3 GJ of primary energy per m2. What this means is that the c-Si PV system would provide an output of electricity roughly equal to 18/3 = 6 times its primary energy input, which corresponds about 6/0.33 = 18 times the amount of electricity that we would have obtained, had we burnt the fuel(s) as FEEDSTOCK in conventional power plants (option 1 above), instead of using them as INPUT for the PV plant.

A planned long-term investment might be advisable, for instance, aimed at bringing about a gradual transition. The latter is in fact what many have been advocating, often only to be met with rather negative ‘gloom and doom’ reactions by others on a number of prominent discussion forums. It seems as if, in the minds of the latter, the desire to show that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ (i.e. that PV and other renewables are not yet, and might never be in full, a real, completely independent and high-EROI alternative to fossil fuels) overrides all other considerations, and prevents them from realizing/admitting that, after all, it may still be reasonable and recommendable to try and push this slow transition forward.

ralfy wrote:Also, the goal of being efficient in capitalist systems with competition is not conservation but increased consumption. In fact, that's the main reason for investing in productivity, with expectations of high returns on investment, which in turn is either used for more consumption or even more production.

No, the goal is increased profits. Growing the market by increasing consumption is one road to increasing profits. However another road is lowering costs, building a better mousetrap, and stealing market share from your less innovative competitors:

Despite the drop in investment, innovation doesn’t stop during low price periods. When prices are high, investment focuses on bringing new supply online. When prices are low, companies focus their efforts on efficiency—bringing oil and gas to market at lower cost. Some of these efforts focus on improving current processes, such as drilling longer laterals and fracking more efficiently in shale and tight oil and gas wells. Several industry speakers, including the CEOs of BP and ConocoPhillips, said that improvements in existing techniques will continue and that there are more efficiencies to be found.

The leading American industrialists of the late nineteenth century were aggressive competitors and innovators. To cut costs and thereby reduce prices and win a larger market share, Andrew Carnegie eagerly scrapped his huge investment in Bessemer furnaces and adopted the open-hearth system for making steel rails. In the oil-refining industry, John D. Rockefeller embraced cost cutting by building his own pipeline network; manufacturing his own barrels; and hiring chemists to remove the vile odor from abundant, low-cost crude oil. Gustavus Swift challenged the existing network of local butchers when he created assembly-line meatpacking facilities in Chicago and built his own fleet of refrigerated railroad cars to deliver low-price beef to distant markets. Local merchants also were challenged by Chicago-based Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward, which pioneered mail-order sales on a money-back, satisfaction-guaranteed basis.

Small-scale producers denounced these innovators as “robber barons,” accused them of monopolistic practices, and appealed to Congress for relief from relentless competition. Beginning with the Sherman Act (1890), Congress enacted antitrust laws that were often used to suppress cost cutting and price slashing, based on acceptance of the idea that an economy of numerous small-scale firms was superior to one dominated by a few large, highly efficient companies operating in national markets (see antitrust).

Despite these constraints, which worked sporadically and unpredictably, the benefits of capitalism were widely diffused.

pstarr wrote:Kub, waste heat from the Consolidated Edison coal-fired power plant has been supplied to heat buildings in Manhattan for over a century.

It's not a new idea, but an expensive investment in infrastructure. It seems we in the US no longer have the political will, or money for such improvements. District in heating New York City (and all over the world) mostly predates suburban sprawl when folks lived in apartment building and businesses were nearby. If there are newer major installations I have not heard of them.

Again, that's my point pstarr. Its a proven, reliable technology. It's been around for over a century. We know it works. We just have to invest the time, energy, and money to build it. There might not be that much CHP in the US, but it's more popular in Russia, Europe, and China.

YAROSLAVL, Russia, June 20 (Xinhua) -- A 483-MW gas-steam combined heat and power (CHP) plant built by a China-Russia joint venture has been officially brought online. As China's largest electricity project in Russia, the project was designed to generate 3.02 billion KWH of electric energy and 814,000 Giga of heating supply annually. Listed as a priority project in 2014 by Yaroslavl authorities, the new CHP plant is expected to tackle the province's chronic problem of power shortages. According to TGC staff, the operation of the Huadian-Teninskaya project will bring down Yaroslavl's power deficit from 40-50 percent to 5-15 percent and fully cover its total power demand in warmer months.

And while district heating is a great use of CHP, it's not the only use. Industrial CHP is actually more common in the US. Lower capital needs and more consistent and concentrated demand make CHP more cost effective for industrial applications:

Industrial CHP installations in the U.S. are typically large (average system size is 52.5 MW) and represent 87% of total installed national capacity. Existing CHP in the industrial sector is concentrated in energy intensive industries such as chemicals, refining, paper, primary metals, and food processing, that have large and coincident electric and steam demands. Installation of large (greater than 20 MW) CHP systems in this sector has been limited in recent years, but market activity is increasing as natural gas rates have declined in many regions. There is also increasing interest in biomass and other alternative fuels.

Refining – Most large refineries in the U.S. currently utilize CHP to provide a portion of their process steam and power needs and to enhance energy reliability. 90% of existing CHP in the refining sector is natural gas, and like chemicals, is dominated by large combined cycle and simple cycle gas turbine systems. Growth opportunities may exist in refineries planning expansions and upgrades.

Chemicals – The chemicals industry is comprised of a wide variety of plants and processes providing a diverse array of commodity and specialty chemical products. CHP is extensively used in certain segments of the chemicals industry such as plastic materials and resins, basic inorganic and organic products and commodity chemicals such as alkali and chlorine. These segments are highly energy intensive with large steam process loads. CHP systems in these applications tend to be based on large gas turbine or combined cycle systems, many owned and/or operated by third party entities that sell steam and power to the industrial facility and excess power to the grid.

Paper – The paper industry has long used CHP to supply its extensive steam and power demands. Large pulp and paper mills tend to be self-sufficient in energy, utilizing wood waste and black liquor recovery, sometimes supplemented with coal in boiler/steam turbine CHP systems. Smaller plants and recycled pulp mills have installed natural gas CHP systems based on gas turbine technology.

Food Processing – Food processing comprises a wide variety of plants and process ranging from local dairies to large wet mill corn processing facilities that resemble chemical plants. Natural gas is the preferred fuel for CHP in this sector (68% of existing capacity) unless the plant has processing waste available or is used to handling large amounts of solids in their operations. Expanding markets for CHP include animal/poultry slaughtering, flour and rice milling, breweries, soft drink manufacturing, animal food manufacturing, fruit and vegetable canning, fluid milk, beet sugar, soybean processing and cereal manufacturing.

Primary Metals – While natural gas represents 51% of existing CHP capacity in the iron and steel industry, this segment also uses a variety of process waste (blast furnace gas, coke oven gas, waste heat) to provide steam and power at its facilities. Natural gas is used more frequently in non-integrated mills where process wastes are not as available.

Transportation – Automobile and truck manufacturers and their suppliers have started to utilize CHP more frequently to provide steam and power needs. Natural gas currently accounts for 88% of existing CHP capacity in this segment.

It's not just industrial customers installing CHP either. Commercial customers, data centers in particular, are getting in on CHP as well. CHP in the US is already twice the size of wind:

11 gigawatts of new customer-sited fuel-based generation will be deployed in the U.S. over the next decade. GTM Research forecasts that the cumulative U.S. CHP and fuel cell market will grow from 84 gigawatts today to 95 gigawatts by 2026.

While distributed renewables get the majority of the distributed generation (DG) headlines, solar and wind are not the only customer-sited generation sources. Today, 8 percent of all U.S. electric generation capacity comes from customer-sited CHP and fuel cells. This is almost double that of the total U.S. wind capacity, and 10 times that of distributed solar.

After a decade of limited growth due to regulatory uncertainties and a declining U.S. manufacturing sector, new incentives and corporate activity are priming the market for resumed growth. “What looks like a stagnant market on the surface is actually smoldering with a significant number of technology and fuel options, capable vendors and a new batch of customers who are ready to adopt fuel-based DG systems”

CHP adoption is increasingly driven by non-industrial customers, while corporations and data centers in a few select states continue to drive U.S. adoption of fuel cells. Today, four U.S. states make up 90 percent of all fuel cell installations: California, Connecticut, Delaware and New York.

“Fuel-based DG has and will continue to play a significant role in the U.S. electricity system, as the U.S. grid infrastructure ages and the need for cleaner and affordable generation options increases. We may be close to a tipping point for the market to start growing again, but among new customer segments and applications.”

05/01/2017 - The use of combined heat and power systems for data centers is set to continue in an upward direction over the next seven years. "Rising adoption of colocation facilities and growing demand for green data centers are expected to bring in new growth opportunities in the U.S. market for combined heat and power system for data center." Furthermore, recovering economy and curtailed natural gas prices will escalate the demand for CHP system for data center in the U.S. market. The government's provision for high tax incentives over CHP systems, which marks a positive sign associated with the market growth.

Ms. Haugian is in contact with some of Europe's most powerful families. In conjunction with her own work she is using the Etp Model as confirmation to prepare for a major world wide reset. She, and her colleagues are informing the European political elite of the danger.

Thanks for your answer.

Can our system really withstand a reset? Physical Laws will always dictate the outcome in the end.

Can our system really withstand a reset? Physical Laws will always dictate the outcome in the end.

Certainly not in its present form. The economy is now being held together with bailing twine and chewing gum. Bonds are being purchased that no one wants, stocks are being purchased that no one wants, new cars are stacking up in dealer lots, and oil is being pumped off to who knows where? The central banks know that once this mess unravels there will be a growing demand for pitchforks, and tar and feathers. Once it becomes common knowledge that putting the creation of the world's money supply into a few unregulated hands was a really bad idea they will be eliminated. What, if anything, that will come after that is hard to know, but the transition will be a little rough.